Case: 25-7504, 01/16/2026, DktEntry: 38.1, Page 29 of 47
Stand Up for California! v. Dep’t of Interior , 959 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2020). All of this adds up to a straightforward conclusion: by offering sports wagers on the Plaintiff Tribes’ lands, Kalshi violates IGRA. II. UIGEA does not excuse Kalshi’s IGRA violation. The district court held that Kalshi could escape liability under IGRA because its offerings do not violate a separate statute, UIGEA. 1- ER-10-12. But this lawsuit was brought under IGRA, and IGRA controls its resolution. Whether Kalshi is also violating UIGEA’s separate bar on accepting payments associated with certain internet gambling is ir- relevant, as UIGEA’s text makes painstakingly clear. A. UIGEA does not supplant IGRA’s substantive prohibi- tions. The plain text of UIGEA forecloses the district court’s reasoning. See Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Def. , 583 U.S. 109, 127 (2018) (explain- ing that, where “the plain language of [the statute] is unambiguous,” a court’s analysis “begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well” (quotation marks omitted)). The statute expressly provides that “[n]o provision of [UIGEA] shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extend-
21
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs